8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
1/355
1 LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 09-CIV-20526-GOLD/MCALILEY
JOHN ALEXA, an individual; ELSA ALLRED,an individual; STEVEN ANDERSON, anindividual; SHERI ANDERSON, an individual;JOANN ANTRIM, an individual; KERRYARNOLD, an individual; JANA ARNOLD, anindividual; JUAN ARRENDONDO, anindividual; GARTH ATWOOD, an individual;ARDITH ATWOOD, an individual; LAURABAKER, an individual; ANNETTE BARNETT,an individual; DUANE BARNEY, an
individual; LAURA ANN OLSEN BARNEY,an individual; JESSE BEAL, an individual;KEVIN BELL, an individual; ISABELLEBERROWS, an individual; STEPHENBIDDULPH, an individual; ALVIN BRANDT,an individual; IRENE BRANDT, an individual;PATRICIA LYNNE BROGAN, individual;JOHN BROOKMAN, an individual; DAWNABROWER, an individual; RALPH BROWER,an individual; LUIS BUSTOS, an individual;BLANCA BUSTOS, an individual; SPENCER
CALL, an individual; MICHAEL CALLAHAN,an individual; FRANCISCO CARMONA, anindividual; ANTONIO CARRENO, anindividual; FEBRONIA CARRENO, anindividual; GARY CASASSA, an individual;ROBERT GARCIA CEJA, an individual; JOSECENDEJAS, an individual; KERRYCHRISTENSEN, an individual; KATHIECHRISTENSEN, an individual; MICHAELCONNER, an individual; MARIA CONNER,an individual; DARREN COSSEY, an
individual; JENNIFER COSSEY, an individual;KATHY COX, an individual; ELEANOR CRAWFORD, an individual; BRENTCROMER, an individual; NANCY DIELI, anindividual; PAUL DUNN, an individual;JONATHAN ELBOM, an individual; RAMIROEFRAIN, individual; SILVA BARRERA, anIndividual; DEANNA FAENZI-GLASS, an
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 1 of 356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
2/355
2LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
individual; JOANNE FALKOWSKI, anindividual; CHARLES FELTON, an individual;MARIA FERNANDEZ, an individual; ALICEFITZWATER, an individual; GERTRUDEFLOOD, an individual; KERRY FLYNN, an
individual; THOMAS FREESE, an individual,JOHN GARDINER, an individual; DIANEGARDINER, an individual; VICTOR GIRON -ALVAREZ, an individual; ALBINOGONZALEZ, an individual; ANAGONZALEZ, an individual; JOSE GURROLA,an individual; SONIA GURROLA, anindividual; BRIAN HALL, an individual;BRUCE HALL, an individual; TYLER HALL,an individual; RAYMOND HANDY, anindividual; MEGHAN HANDY, an individual;
CLAYTON HANSEN, an individual; ALYSONHANSEN, an individual; KAREN HANSEN,an individual; THOMAS HARP, an individual;RICK HAWKER, an individual; DENNISHAWORTH, an individual; GARY HOUSE, anindividual; TRENT HUDSON, an individual;VALERIE HUDSON, an individual; GILBERTIRUEGAS, an individual; CHERYL JACKS, anindividual; KAY LYNN JACOBSON, anindividual; ALAN JENKINS, an individual;GILBERT JING, an individual; FRANK
JUNIO, an individual; RHONDA JUNIO, anindividual; JOHN KASSEL, an individual;PATRICIA KASSEL, an individual; JOHNKAY, an individual; VERNON KILLEN, anindividual; SEAN KIRBY, an individual;CAROL KITT, an individual; ROBERT KITT,an individual; WARRENETTA LANE, anindividual; JAMES LAWRENCE, anindividual; WENDY LAWRENCE, anindividual; RICHARD LEE, an individual;MAY LEE, an individual; WAYLAND LEE, an
individual; BARBARA LEWIS, an individual;JOSE MANUEL LEYVA AQUILAR, anindividual; EARL LINEBAUGH, an individual;RITA LINEBAUGH, an individual; EDLOOPER, an individual; FINDENCIO LOPEZ,an individual; TIBURCIO LOPEZ, anindividual; ERIKA LOPEZ, an individual;DOUGLAS MADSEN, an individual;,
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 2 of 356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
3/355
3LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
CHERYL MADSEN, an individual; ISMAELMANZO ALVAREZ, an individual; ANGELMARAVILLA, an individual; PIEDADMARAVILLA, an individual; ANTHONYMARTIN, an individual; OZZIE MARTIN, JR.,
an individual; WILLIAM MATZ, an individual;ERICA MATZ, an individual; KYLEMCARTHUR, an individual, ALISAKRINSKY, an individual, CHERYL MEYERYOUNG,an individual, JOSE MILLAN, anindividual, EMMA MILLAN, an individual,KAREL MOJZIS, an individual, SHIRLEYMOORE, an individual, THOMASMUSGROVE, an individual, DON MYRES, anindividual, SHIRLEY MYRES, an individual,SERGIO NAVARRO, an individual, ROSA
NAVARRO, an individual; DANIEL NIELSON, an individual; WALTER NEWBAUM, an individual; PAM NEWBAUM,an individual; ROBERTA OBRION, anindividual; RUTH OHAGAN, an individual;JUAN OLVERA-QUIJAS, an individual;ALBERTO OROZCO, an individual; NORMAOROZCO, an individual; LOREDANA ORTIZ,an individual; MATTHEW PARENTE, anindividual; JOSE PENA, an individual;RAFAELA PENA, an individual; RAFAELA
GUADALUPE PEREZ, an individual; FELIPEPEREZ, and individual, MARIA PEREZ, anindividual MILTON PETTIT, an individual;
NOLAN PHILLIPS, an individual; JENNIEPHILLIPS, an individual; CHARLESPUCKETT, an individual; RANDYPULLMAN, an individual; KEVIN RAINEY,an individual; CINDY RAINEY, an individual;LOWELL RICE, an individual; LINDA RICE,an individual; CHARLYN ROBERTS, anindividual; ABEL ROCHA, an individual;
JUAN RODRIQUEZ, JR., an individual;JUDITH ROGERS, an individual; JOEROSSITER, an individual; IMA ROSSITER, anindividual; JEAN ROSSITER, an individual;JOSE LUIS SANCHEZ,, an individual;SAMUEL SANCHEZ, an individual; MIGUELSILVA MEZA, an individual; ANGELASIMAS, an individual; DANOU SISA-AT, an
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 3 of 356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
4/355
4LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
individual; JARED SKELTON, an individual;JENNY SKELTON, an individual; GLORIASMITH, an individual; JIM SNIEZKO, anindividual; JAMES SOLTIS, an individual;ROSALIND SOLTIS, an individual;
STANTON SOUTHWICK, an individual; JILLSOUTHWICK, an individual; MARTHASPENCE an individual; WILLIAMSUBLETTE, an individual; LORI SUBLETTE,an individual; SAM SYLIPHONE, anindividual; BILL TABBERT, an individual;LINDA TABBERT, an individual;KATHLEEN TANNER, an individual; MARIATAPIA, an individual; BRUCE THOMAS, anindividual; CHERYL THOMAS, an individual;GARY THOMPSON, an individual; KERRY
THOMPSON, an individual; STEVETHOMPSON, an individual; LUIS TORRES,an individual; MARIA TORRES, an individual;KENNY TRAN, an individual; CHRISTOLTRAN, an individual; PAULINE TRAUB, anindividual; RUTH VALDEZ, an individual;JOHN VERKAIK, an individual; JENNIFER VERKAIK, an individual; MARCELA VILLAGOMEZ, an individual; KENNETHWALLACE, an individual; KAMILLEWALLACE, an individual; ROLF WALPOLE,
an individual, TANGIE WALPOLE, anindividual, JOHN WEBB, an individual;TERRY WEBB, an individual; HARVEYWEILER, an individual; MARLENE WEILER,an individual; KAY WILLIAMS, an individual;MARY LEE WILLIAMS, an individual;SANDRA WIN, an individual; JEFFREYWOLF, an individual; LOLITA WOLF, anindividual; KOK KYAN WONG, an individual;STEVEN YOUNG, an individual; REBECCAYOUNG, an individual; MARTIN ZAMUDIO,
an individual; ESTELA ZAMUDIO, anindividual; SUSAN ZANAYED, an individual;
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 4 of 356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
5/355
5LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
EMI RESORTS, INC., a foreign corporation;EMI SUN VILLAGE, INC., a foreigncorporation; HSV HOTELES DEOPERADORA,S.A., f/k/a EMI RESORTSMANAGEMENT, S.A., a foreign corporation;
EMI RESORTS MANAGEMENT (S.V.G.),INC., a foreign corporation; EMI COFRESIDEVELOPMENTS, INC. a/k/a COFRESIDEVELOPMENTS, INC., a foreigncorporation; KAHEBRAM, S.A., a foreigncorporation; ELLIOTT MANAGEMENT, INC.,a/k/a EMI MANAGEMENT,INC., a foreigncorporation; INVERSIONES AVIATI, S.A., aforeign corporation; SUN VILLAGE JUANDOLIO, INC., a foreign corporation;PROMOTORA XARA, S.A., a foreign
corporation; ELLIOTT MICHES HOLDINGS,INC., a foreign corporation; INVERSIONESYUBASO, S.A., a foreign corporation;INMOBILIARIA LIRIOS DEL TROPICO,S.A., a foreign corporation; INMOBILIARIACANADAIGUA, S.A., a foreign corporation;HSV HOLDINGS, S.A., a foreign corporation;DESARROLLOS MIRADOR COFRESI, S.A.,a foreign corporation; TENEDORA HSV [BP],S.A., a foreign corporation; VILLA SANTAPONCA, S.A., a foreign corporation; DCS
DOMINICAN CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,S.A., a foreign corporation; ELLIOTTREGENT HOLDINGS, INC., a foreigncorporation; ELLIOTT TOSCANAHOLDINGS, INC., a foreign corporation;LANDMARK LENDING CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, 408 CUMBERLANDHOLDINGS, INC., a foreign corporation,BERTUS MANAGEMENT, INC., a foreigncorporation, ORANGEVILLE RESERVATIONSERVICES, LTD., a California corporation,
CCW DOMINICANA, S.A., a foreigncorporation; MPS LTD., S.A., a foreigncorporation; COFRESCO HOLDINGS, INC., aforeign corporation; IMMOBILIARIAMONCEY, S.A., a foreign corporation;CELLWAVE NETWORKS, LTD., a foreigncorporation, WWIN INTERNATIONAL LTD.,a foreign corporation; MELLESINO C. POR A.,
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 5 of 356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
6/355
6LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
a foreign corporation; TENEDORA WESSEXDOMINICANA, S.A., a foreign corporation;SUN VILLAGE CONTRUCCIONES, S.A., aforeign corporation; SUN VILLAGE JDHOLDING, INC., a Delaware corporation;
1211766 ALBERTA LTD., a foreigncorporation; TRIPALMS REAL ESTATE INC.,a foreign corporation; OCEAN PALMS REALESTATE (SVG) INC., a, foreign corporation;DE MARCHENA KALUCHE &ASOCIADOS, a foreign corporation;ENRIQUE DE MARCHENA, an individual;VICTOR CABRAL, an individual;
N.W.N.GROUP, LLC, a/k/a NET WEALTH NAVIGATORS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability, company, MICHAEL LAWTER, an
individual; TIPPY TAN LAWTER, anindividual; FREDERICK ELLIOTT, anindividual; and DEREK ELLIOTT, anindividual, 1
Defendants. ________________________________________
CORPORATE DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
EMI Resorts Inc., EMI Sun Village Inc., HSV Operadora de Hoteles, S.A., EMI Resorts
Management, S.A., EMI Resorts (S.V.G.) Inc., EMI Cofresi Developments Inc., Sun Village
Juan Dolio Inc., Promotora Xara, S.A., Elliott Miches Holdings Inc., Inversiones Yubaso, S.A.,
Inmobiliaria Lirios Del Tropico, S.A., Inmobiliaria Canadaigua, S.A., HSV Holdings, S.A.,
Desarrollos Mirador Cofresi, S.A., Tenedora HSV [B.P.], S.A., Villa Santa Ponca, S.A., Bertus
1 Notwithstanding this Court's admonishment that the name of a corporation controls (with respect to the entry of
defaults) and not a corporation's alleged f/k/a or a/k/a [D.E. 835], Plaintiffs have once again attempted to link entities without any proof that such entities are, in fact, "also known as" another entity. Accordingly, the CorporateDefendants reject and disavow any such linkage of entities with the term "a/k/a" in the absence of proof of anestablished relationship between the linked entities. Specifically, Plaintiffs link the following: (1) EMI COFRESIDEVELOPMENTS, INC. a/k/a COFRESI DEVELOPMENTS, INC., a foreign corporation; (2) ELLIOTTMANAGEMENT, INC., a/k/a EMI MANAGEMENT,INC., a foreign corporation; (3) N.W.N.GROUP, LLC, a/k/a
NET WEALTH NAVIGATORS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability, company; and (4) HSV HOTELESDEOPERADORA,S.A., f/k/a EMI RESORTS MANAGEMENT, S.A., a foreign corporation.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 6 of 356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
7/355
7LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
Management Inc., CCW Dominicana, S.A, Cofresco Holdings Inc., Inmobiliaria Moncey, S.A.,
Cellwave Networks Limited and WWIN International Limited (collectively, the "Corporate
Defendants"), by and through undersigned counsel, herein responds to Plaintiffs' Amended
Complaint and Jury Trial Demand (the "Amended Complaint"), paragraph by corresponding
paragraph, and say: 2
INTRODUCTION
1. Denied.
2. The document referred to in paragraph 2 of the Amended Complaint speaks for
itself, and therefore, Corporate Defendants deny the allegations in said paragraph.
3. The document referred to in paragraph 3 of the Amended Complaint speaks for
itself, and therefore, Corporate Defendants deny the allegations in said paragraph.
4. Denied.
5. Corporate Defendants admit that Plaintiffs purport to bring an action seeking, among
other things, compensatory and exemplary damages, but denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief
requested; Corporate Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 5 and demand strict
proof thereof.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
2 All allegations not specifically admitted are hereby denied.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 7 of 356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
8/355
8LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
a. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
b. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
c. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
d. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
e. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
f. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
g. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 8 of 356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
9/355
9LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
h. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
i. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
j. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
k. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
l. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
m. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
n. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 9 of 356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
10/355
10LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
o. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
p. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
q. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
r. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
s. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
t. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
u. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 10 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
11/355
11LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
v. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
w. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
x. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
y. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
z. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
aa. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
bb. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 11 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
12/355
12LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
cc. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
dd. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ee. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ff. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
gg. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
hh. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ii. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 12 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
13/355
13LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
jj. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
kk. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ll. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
mm. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
nn. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
oo. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
pp. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 13 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
14/355
14LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
qq. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
rr. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ss. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
tt. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
uu. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
vv. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ww. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 14 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
15/355
15LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
xx. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
yy. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
zz. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
aaa. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
bbb. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ccc. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ddd. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 15 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
16/355
16LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
eee. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
fff. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ggg. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
hhh. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
iii. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
jjj. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
kkk. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 16 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
17/355
17LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
lll. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
mmm. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
nnn. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ooo. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ppp. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
qqq. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
rrr. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 17 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
18/355
18LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
sss. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ttt. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
uuu. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
vvv. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
www. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
xxx. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
yyy. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 18 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
19/355
19LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
zzz. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
aaaa. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
bbbb. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
cccc. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
dddd. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
eeee. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ffff. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 19 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
20/355
20LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
gggg. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
hhhh. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
iiii. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
jjjj. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
kkkk. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
llll. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
mmmm. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 20 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
21/355
21LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
nnnn. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
oooo. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
pppp. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
qqqq. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
rrrr. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ssss. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
tttt. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 21 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
22/355
22LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
uuuu. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
vvvv. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
wwww. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
xxxx. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
yyyy. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
zzzz. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
aaaaa. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 22 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
23/355
23LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
bbbbb. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ccccc. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ddddd. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
eeeee. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
fffff. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ggggg. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
hhhhh. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 23 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
24/355
24LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
iiiii. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
jjjjj. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
kkkkk. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
lllll. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
mmmmm. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
nnnnn. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ooooo. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 24 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
25/355
25LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
ppppp. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
qqqqq. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
rrrrr. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
sssss. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ttttt. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
uuuuu. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
vvvvv. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 25 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
26/355
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
27/355
27LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
dddddd. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
eeeeee. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ffffff. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
gggggg. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
hhhhhh. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
iiiiii. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
jjjjjj. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 27 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
28/355
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
29/355
29LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
rrrrrr. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ssssss. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
tttttt. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
uuuuuu. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
vvvvvv. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
wwwwww. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
xxxxxx. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 29 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
30/355
30LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
yyyyyy. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
zzzzzz. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
aaaaaaa. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
bbbbbbb. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
ccccccc. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations
contained in this subparagraph of paragraph 6 of the Amended Complaint and therefore,
deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
7. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
8. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
9. Corporate Defendants admit that HSV Hoteles de Operadora, S.A. is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Dominican Republic for jurisdictional
purposes only. Corporate Defendants deny that HSV Hoteles de Operadora, S.A. was formerly
known as EMI Resorts Management S.A.
10. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 30 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
31/355
31LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
11. Corporate Defendants admit that EMI Cofresi Developments, Inc. is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the Turks and Caicos Islands for jurisdictional purposes
only. Corporate Defendants deny that EMI Cofresi Developments, Inc. is also known as Cofresi
Developments, Inc.
12. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
13. Corporate Defendants admit that Elliott Management, Inc. is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the Province of Ontario, Canada for jurisdictional
purposes only. Corporate Defendants deny that Elliott Management, Inc. is also known as EMI
Management, Inc.
14. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
15. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
16. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
17. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
18. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
19. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
20. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
21. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
22. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
23. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
24. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 31 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
32/355
32LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
25. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 25 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
26. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
27. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
28. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
29. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
30. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
31. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 31 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
32. Corporate Defendants admit that CCW Dominicana, S.A. is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of the Dominican Republic for jurisdictional purposes
only. Corporate Defendants deny that CCW Dominicana, S.A. is also known as CCW LTD.
33. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 33 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
34. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
35. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
36. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
37. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
38. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
39. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 32 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
33/355
33LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
40. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 40 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
41. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
42. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
43. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
44. Corporate Defendants admit for jurisdictional purposes only.
45. Denied.
46. The documents referred to in Paragraph 46 of the Amended Complaint speak for
themselves, and therefore, Corporate Defendants deny the allegations in said paragraph.
47. Denied.
48. The documents referred to in Paragraph 48 of the Amended Complaint speak for
themselves, and therefore, Corporate Defendants deny the allegations in said paragraph.
49. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 49 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
50. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 50 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
51. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 51 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof. Corporate Defendants deny that Mr. Cabral was on the Board of Directors of EMIRI.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 33 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
34/355
34LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
52. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 52 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
53. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 53 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
54. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 54 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
55. Denied.
56. Corporate Defendants admit that Derek Elliott is Frederick ("Fred") Elliott's son.
Corporate Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 56 and demand strict proof
thereof.
57. Paragraph 57 does not contain factual allegations which require a response. To
the extent a response is required; the statutes referenced in Paragraph 57 speak for themselves
and therefore Corporate Defendants deny the legal conclusions made with respect to such
statutes.
58. Paragraph 58 does not contain factual allegations which require a response. To
the extent a response is required; the statutes referenced in Paragraph 57 speak for themselves
and therefore Corporate Defendants deny the legal conclusions made with respect to such
statutes.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 34 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
35/355
35LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
59. The statutes referenced in Paragraph 59 speak for themselves and therefore
Corporate Defendants deny the legal conclusions made with respect to such statutes. Corporate
Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 59.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
60. Denied.
61. Denied.
The Resort Properties
The EMI Sun Village Resort & Spa
62. Denied.
63. Corporate Defendants admit that in 1987 Frederick Elliott solicited a group of
investors to begin the process of acquiring raw land in the Dominican Republic for future
development as a hotel/resort. Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations made
in paragraph 63.
64. Denied.
65. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 65 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
66. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 66 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
67. Denied.
68. Corporate Defendants admit that the Sun Village Resort offered 300 rooms,
master suites, and luxury villas; seven pools and roman tubs, children's pools and a waterslide;
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 35 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
36/355
36LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
five international restaurants and nine bars; among other amenities. Corporate Defendants deny
the remainder of the allegations made in paragraph 68.
69. Denied.
70. Denied.
71. Corporate Defendants admit that the amenities were sufficient to support a 500
room resort, and that Sun Village was expensive to operate. Corporate Defendants deny the
remainder of the allegations made in paragraph 71.
72. Denied.
73. Denied.
74. Corporate Defendants admit that the "Residence Product" was not an equity
product, but rather an interest in and/or the right to use the real property. Corporate Defendants
deny the remainder of the allegations made in paragraph 74.
75. Admitted.
76. Denied.
77. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to what specific marketing
materials Plaintiffs refer to in paragraph 77 and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof. Notwithstanding, all marketing materials used by the Corporate Defendants were
created by James Catledge and his related companies and agents and not by the Corporate
Defendants.
78. Denied.
79. Denied.
80. Denied.
81. Denied.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 36 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
37/355
37LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
82. Corporate Defendants admit that certain of the Corporate Defendants retained the
option to buy back the "TR Timeshare Owner's" suite after five (5) years, at the owner's original
purchase price. Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 82.
83. Denied.
84. Corporate Defendants admit that the Residence Product sales contracts provided
differing rates of "NUF" to be paid to the TR Timeshare Owner but at the request of James
Catledge and/or his agents, and the sales contracts did not state a percentage return, but
expressed NUF payments in dollar increments. The remainder of paragraph 84 does not contain
allegations of fact; but rather a hypothetical that does not require a response. To the extent a
response is required, Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 84
and demand strict proof thereof.
85. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 85 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
86. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 86 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
87. Denied.
88. Corporate Defendants deny the first sentence of paragraph 88. Corporate
Defendants are without knowledge with respect to the remainder of the allegations made in
paragraph 88 and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof.
89. Corporate Defendants admit that there were big improvements at the Sun Village
Resort which included, without limitation, a new spa and spa suites renovation which included a
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 37 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
38/355
38LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
work-out room, spa, treatment rooms, salon and pool. Corporate Defendants are without
knowledge as to the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 89 and therefore, deny same
and demand strict proof thereof.
90. Admitted with respect to the Corporate Defendants only.
91. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
the second sentence of paragraph 91 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and
demand strict proof thereof. Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations made
in paragraph 91.
The EMI Residence
92. Corporate Defendants admit that the EMI Residence 3 was scheduled to open in
late 2006 and that, originally, the EMI Residence was to consist of 198 one and two bedroom
luxury master suites and spacious studios. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to
the remainder of the allegations contained in paragraph 92 and demand strict proof thereof.
93. Denied as plead. Due to the re-design and upgrades by Maxim, only 108 units
were approved for development and there was only enough land to build 108 units with the
expanded room and amenity footprint which gave guests better value and higher luxury.
94. Denied.
95. Denied.
96. Denied.
97. Corporate Defendants admit that the process of condominiumization of the
various elements of the fractional ownership property formerly known as the EMI Residences
3 The new buildings at Sun Village Cofresi were initially called the "Residence." The Residence was later referred to as the "Maxim Bungalows" or simply the "Bungalows." Initially, the "Residence" product was sold in respect of them, but they were later "fractionalized."
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 38 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
39/355
39LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
was not completed; however, the condominiumization of Juan Dolio was complete. Corporate
Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations made in paragraph 97.
The Juan Dolio Property
98. Corporate Defendants admit that they, along with James Catledge and his
companies and agents, decided to pursue an opportunity to purchase an existing hotel property
for re-development.
99. Corporate Defendants admit that the property was located at Juan Dolio in the
Dominican Republic. Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations made in
paragraph 99.
100. Admitted.
101. Corporate Defendants admit that they, along with James Catledge and his
companies and agents, devised a plan whereby they would re-develop the Juan Dolio Property as
a high-end resort with approximately 241 rooms. Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of
the allegations made in paragraph 101.
102. Denied.
103. Denied.
104. Denied.
105. Denied.
106. Denied.
107. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 107 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 39 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
40/355
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
41/355
41LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
114. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 114 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
115. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 115 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
116. Denied.
117. Denied.
118. Denied.
119. The document referred to in paragraph 119 of the Amended Complaint speaks for
itself, and therefore, Corporate Defendants deny the allegations in said paragraph.
120. Denied.
121. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to what the prospective
purchasers "relied" upon and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof. In addition,
the documents referred to in paragraph 121 speak for themselves, and therefore, Corporate
Defendants deny all allegations with respect to such documents.
122. Admitted.
123. Denied.
124. Denied.
The Elliotts' Scheme to Defraud
125. Admitted.
126. Denied.
127. Denied.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 41 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
42/355
42LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
128. Denied.
129. Denied.
130. Denied.
131. Denied.
132. Denied.
133. Denied as to paragraph and all subparagraphs.
134. Denied.
135. Denied as to paragraph and all subparagraphs.
The Elliotts' Misrepresentations
136. Denied as to paragraph and all subparagraphs.
The Elliotts' Latest Scheme to Raise Cash
137. Denied.
138. Denied.
139. Denied.
140. The documents referred to in paragraph 140 speak for themselves, and therefore,
Corporate Defendants deny all allegations with respect to such documents.
141. Corporate Defendants admit that certain of the Corporate Defendants
communicated to owners of the Passport that Aviati intended to begin "foreclosing" upon the
notes, and stating that purchasers will lose the deposit monies they paid, unless these purchasers
executed additional agreements. Corporate Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations
made in paragraph 141.
142. Denied.
143. Denied.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 42 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
43/355
43LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
144. Denied.
145. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations regarding
whether there are "several instances where owners who have successfully sold their fractional
interests did not receive the proceeds from the sale" contained in paragraph 145 of the Amended
Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof Denied. Corporate
Defendants deny the remainder of the allegations made in paragraph 145.
146. The documents referred to in Paragraph 146 of the Amended Complaint speak for
themselves, and therefore, Corporate Defendants deny the allegations in said paragraph.
147. Denied.
148. Denied.
149. Denied.
150. Denied.
151. Denied.
The Elliotts' Poison Pill Foreclosure of the Cofresi and Juan Dolio
152. Denied.
153. Admitted.
154. Admitted.
155. Admitted.
156. Corporate Defendants admit the first two sentences of paragraph 156. Corporate
Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in the remainder of the
allegations made in paragraph 156 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and
demand strict proof thereof.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 43 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
44/355
44LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
157. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 157 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
The Targets of the Elliotts' Scheme to Defraud
158. Denied.
159. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 159 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
160. Denied.
161. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 161 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
162. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 162 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
163. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 163 of the Amended Complaint and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof
thereof.
COUNT IRacketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organization ("RICO"), Title 18 U.S.C. 1962(e)
164. Corporate Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their responses to the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 163 above as though fully set forth herein.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 44 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
45/355
45LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
165. Paragraph 165 does not contain factual allegations which require a response. To
the extent a response is required, the statute described in paragraph 165 speaks for itself, and
therefore the allegations in paragraph 165 are denied and Corporate Defendants demands strict
proof thereof.
166. Paragraph 166 does not contain factual allegations which require a response. To
the extent a response is required, the statute described in paragraph 166 speaks for itself, and
therefore the allegations in paragraph 166 are denied and Corporate Defendants demands strict
proof thereof.
167. The statute described in paragraph 167 speaks for itself, and therefore the
allegations in paragraph 167 are denied and Corporate Defendants demand strict proof thereof.
In addition, Corporate Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 167.
Goal and Purpose
168. Denied.
169. Denied.
The Laws that Frederick and Derek Violated WhileThey Conducted the Affairs of the Elliott Enterprise
170. The allegations in paragraph 170 and its subparagraphs (a) through (f) do not
appear to be directed to Corporate Defendants. To the extent that the allegations can be
construed as requiring a response from Corporate Defendants, such allegations are denied.
171. Denied.
The Pattern of Racketeering Activity
172. The allegations in paragraph 172 do not appear to be directed to Corporate
Defendants. To the extent that the allegations can be construed as requiring a response from
Corporate Defendants, such allegations are denied.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 45 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
46/355
46LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
173. The allegations in paragraph 173 do not appear to be directed to Corporate
Defendants. To the extent that the allegations can be construed as requiring a response from
Corporate Defendants, such allegations are denied.
Transportation of Stolen Monies in Interstate or Foreign Commerce
174. The allegations in paragraph 174 do not appear to be directed to Corporate
Defendants. To the extent that the allegations can be construed as requiring a response from
Corporate Defendants, such allegations are denied.
Sale or Receipt of Stolen Monies
175. The allegations in paragraph 175 do not appear to be directed to Corporate
Defendants. To the extent that the allegations can be construed as requiring a response from
Corporate Defendants, such allegations are denied.
Wire Fraud
176. The allegations in paragraph 176 do not appear to be directed to Corporate
Defendants. To the extent that the allegations can be construed as requiring a response from
Corporate Defendants, such allegations are denied.
Interstate and Foreign Travel or Transportation inAid of the Elliott Racketeering Enterprise
177. The allegations in paragraph 177 do not appear to be directed to Corporate
Defendants. To the extent that the allegations can be construed as requiring a response from
Corporate Defendants, such allegations are denied.
Laundering of Monetary Instruments
178. The allegations in paragraph 178 do not appear to be directed to Corporate
Defendants. To the extent that the allegations can be construed as requiring a response from
Corporate Defendants, such allegations are denied.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 46 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
47/355
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
48/355
48LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
188. The statute described in paragraph 188 speaks for itself, and therefore the
allegations in paragraph 188 are denied and Corporate Defendants demand strict proof thereof.
In addition, Corporate Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 188.
189. Denied.
190. Denied.
191. Denied.
Plaintiff's "wherefore" clause does not contain factual allegations which require a
response. To the extent a response is required, Corporate Defendants deny any and all liability
and deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any equitable or legal relief.
COUNT IIICivil Remedies for Criminal Practices Act, Florida Statute 772.103
192. Corporate Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their responses to the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 163 above as though fully set forth herein.
193. The statute described in paragraph 193 speaks for itself, and therefore the
allegations in paragraph 193 are denied and Corporate Defendants demand strict proof thereof.
In addition, Corporate Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 193.
194. Denied.
195. The statute described in paragraph 195 speaks for itself, and therefore the
allegations in paragraph 195 are denied and Corporate Defendants demand strict proof thereof.
In addition, Corporate Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 195.
196. The statute described in paragraph 196 speaks for itself, and therefore the
allegations in paragraph 196 are denied and Corporate Defendants demand strict proof thereof.
In addition, Corporate Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 196.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 48 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
49/355
49LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
Plaintiff's "wherefore" clause does not contain factual allegations which require a
response. To the extent a response is required, Corporate Defendants deny any and all liability
and deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any equitable or legal relief.
COUNT IVConspiracy to Violate Civil Remedies for
Criminal Practices Act, Fla. Stat. 772.103
197. Corporate Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their responses to the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 163 above as though fully set forth herein.
198. The statute described in paragraph 198 speaks for itself, and therefore the
allegations in paragraph 198 are denied and Corporate Defendants demand strict proof thereof.
In addition, Corporate Defendants deny the factual allegations contained in paragraph 198.
199. Denied.
Plaintiff's "wherefore" clause does not contain factual allegations which require a
response. To the extent a response is required, Corporate Defendants deny any and all liability
and deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any equitable or legal relief.
COUNT VBREACH OF CONTRACT
200. Corporate Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their responses to the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 163 above as though fully set forth herein.
201. The documents described in paragraph 201 speak for themselves, and therefore
the allegations in paragraph 201 are denied and Corporate Defendants demand strict proof
thereof.
202. Corporate Defendants are without knowledge as to the allegations contained in
paragraph 202 of the Amended Complaint related to why Plaintiffs allegedly made their
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 49 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
50/355
50LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
purchases and therefore, deny same and demand strict proof thereof. Corporate Defendants deny
the remainder of the allegations made in paragraph 202.
203. Denied.
204. Denied.
Plaintiff's "wherefore" clause does not contain factual allegations which require a
response. To the extent a response is required, Corporate Defendants deny any and all liability
and deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any equitable or legal relief.
COUNT VIUNJUST ENRICHMENT
205. Corporate Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their responses to the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 163 above as though fully set forth herein.
206. Denied.
207. Denied.
208. Denied.
209. Denied.
210. Denied.
211. The allegations in Paragraph 211 do not appear to be directed to Corporate
Defendants. To the extent that the allegations can be construed as requiring a response from
Corporate Defendants, such allegations are denied.
212. Denied.
213. Denied.
Plaintiff's "wherefore" clause does not contain factual allegations which require a
response. To the extent a response is required, Corporate Defendants deny any and all liability
and deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any equitable or legal relief.
Case 1:09-cv-20526-ASG Document 940 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/01/2010 Page 50 of356
8/14/2019 940. EMI. Corporate Defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses Counterclaim(00634648)[1]
51/355
51LAW OFFICES OF MELAND RUSSIN & BUDWICK, P.A.
3000 WACHOVIA FINANCIAL CENTE R, 200 SOUTH BISCAYNE BOULE VARD, MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 TELEPHONE (305) 358-6363
COUNT VIIFRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT
214. Corporate Defendants reallege and incorporate by reference their responses to the
allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 163 above as though fully set forth herein.
2
Top Related